AEA RCT Registry

Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment

Last registered on May 23, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0001759

Initial registration date

November 05, 2016

Last updated

May 23, 2018 8:13 AM EDT

Location(s)

Country

Denmark

Region

Copenhagen

Primary Investigator

Name

Adriaan Soetevent

Affiliation

University of Groningen

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Toke Fosgaard

PI Affiliation

University of Copenhagen

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2016-11-06

End date

2018-05-18

Keywords

Finance & Microfinance

Additional Keywords

Charitable Fundraising

JEL code(s)

C93; D64; L31

Secondary IDs

Abstract

Innovations in consumer payment instruments urge charities to adapt the way they raise funds. In door-to-door fund raising, the shift in preference from giving cash to making donations by mobile phone changes the nature of the interaction between solicitor and donor. This study deals with the challenge posed to charities on how to ensure that mobile phone users participate in the fund raising drive. We investigate this in collaboration with a Danish charity. Our 3x2 design targets respondents who have indicated a preference to give by mobile phone. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Fosgaard, Toke and Adriaan Soetevent. 2018. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. May 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1759-11.0.

Former Citation

Fosgaard, Toke, Adriaan Soetevent and Adriaan Soetevent. 2018. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. May 23. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1759/history/29933.

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

In the annual door-to-door fund-raising drive of a large charitable organization, solicited households who indicate that they wish to donate by mobile phone at a later date are randomly assigned to one of six treatments. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.

Intervention Start Date

2016-11-06

Intervention End Date

2016-11-07

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

a. Donations by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone;
b. Pledged amounts by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups:
I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do face a deadline to complete the transfer;
V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer;
VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. Respondents face a deadline to complete the transfer.

Experimental Design Details

Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups: I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer; II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer; III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer; IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer; V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer; VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer.

Randomization Method

One of the PIs took 6 instruction packages (one of each treatment) and randomly put them in one of six bags that also contained the other materials solicitors needed. These six bags were randomly ordered in a bunch that was tied together with a piece of rope. At the intervention date, the helpers picked one of these bunches and assigned a bag to a solicitor arriving (taking out the instructions and reading them out aloud to the solicitor). Each time the helper had finished a bunch, he or she fetched a new bunch of six bags.

Randomization Unit

Level of randomization is the solicitor level

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

300 solicitors

Sample size: planned number of observations

Planned number of total observations in terms of households approached: 30,000 (100 per solicitor)

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

50 solicitors in NP7: no pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in NPinf: no pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in SP7: soft pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in SPinf: soft pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in FP7: firm pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in FPinf: firm pledge, no deadline;

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information

IRB

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)

IRB Name

IRB of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen

IRB Approval Date

2016-11-04

IRB Approval Number

RUG_FEB2016AS01